The potential for abuse is a lot more abstract and hypothetical. They could work out that people are buying certain items together, but most superstores are already collecting that sort of information. These are largely anonymous so there's a complete lack of personal information. Exactly what they're spying on is a bit vague.
However, we do have some pretty competent privacy legislation in this country. If RFID tags do become a problem I'd imagine the legislation will be expanded.
t's not quite certain if TNT genuinely wanted to make the show the way they were telling JMS to make it or if they were just doing everything they could to sink the show.
If the TV industry is anything like the games industry, they genuinely thought they were being helpful. Unfortunately the people trying to be helpful had no idea just how hard creating these things actually is, and think that a few simple formulas (e.g. more sex = higher ratings) were as good as actual creativity.
You didn't give it a chance. Which isn't surprising. It required quite a lot of commitment. The dialogue was ropey, the acting from many of the actors was wooden, and a lot of the individual earlier episodes were a little uneventful out of context with the big picture.
But there was a very strong backstory, a lot of really quite clever political stuff, and was generally a lot more daring than other shows - especially science fiction shows - of the time. Characters developed. There was no big plot reset button. There was often no right or wrong answer. A lot of the episode conclusions were far from ideal.
You were trying to get me to narrow down why I claim a dolphin is a fish. Something I'm clearly not going to do because you might find fault with my otherwise impeccible logic:P
I'm not quite sure why you're asking about what makes birds birds. Humans were around a long time before the plane was invented, and birds aren't fish either and wouldn't be even if they could fly a plane.
I don't know. Do birds fly in planes? Is that what makes them bords? If so then yes we probably are birds. I don't think they do though. If we had evolved wings then we'd be birds.
And to clarify, by "live in the sea", I mean "evolved to live in the sea". Since a swimmer is not evolved to live in the sea, nad tpyically lives on the land, they're not fish.
That's not quite what the law says. The law says that the plaintiff can elect specific damages.
I agree that this should not be constitutional. Amendment VIII has the phrase "nor excessive fines imposed", but I believe precedent goes against that one.
It would have been nice if a consortium of electronics manufacturers came up with their own rival format that explicitely had no region restrictions, always output at full HD resolution, and was in some way or another "better" (or at least as good but substantially cheaper) than the other two formats. But a format would be worthless without content.
I'm not so sure. Sure, the average consumer isn't concerend, but the first people to buy a PS3 are going to be tech savvy, and keep up to date with the tech news.
If people used these correctly, this specific case wouldn't be an issue. The process is something along the lines of this:
Copyright holder (CNN) sends a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP (YouTube). They are obliged to take down the video, inform the subscriber (whoever posted the video), send details of the subscriber to to copyright holder. The subscriber can then assert that the material doesn't infringe copyright, and the ISP can put it up again, safe in the knowledge that the subscriber has accepted full responsibility. The ISP is then out of the picture since its isolated from complaints.
The ISP is perfectly entitled to ignore the takedown if they're certain that no copyright infringement is involved, but then they're liable for damages as well. And fair use is still a valid defence whoever decides to defend the suit.
The idea of using procedures to generate 3D graphics has been around since another BBC game, "The Sentinel", where 9999 levels of 3D landscape were generated at up to 1fps
Did this generate the data on the fly then? I always assumed that it generated the landscape at the start of the level and would just draw from a buffer during the actual game.
the PS3's Cell architecture is supposedly ideal for doing this kind of thing
It's true that parallel systems work well for this general class of tasks. Something as general purpose as a Cell may be overkill. You can do quite a lot just with programmable pixel shaders.
The law is out of date. It was written at a time when the possibility of an individual sharing several copies of hundreds of songs was inconceivable. $750 per title as damages for a company that's churning out hundreds of copies for sale at market stalls is hardly totally unreasonable, since they could easily be, and probably would be selling several hundred even if the exact amount sold is impossible to judge. Still not a brilliantly just law but that's another matter.
If you take the perl job, would your income be greater than your outgoing, after taking accoutn of loan repayments, rent, food, utilities and sufficient luxuries that you're content? If so, why do you actually want the extra from the.net job?
Slashdot Mirror
Because Slashdot moderators are morons, and this particular one disagreed with you.
These are handy for stock control.
The potential for abuse is a lot more abstract and hypothetical. They could work out that people are buying certain items together, but most superstores are already collecting that sort of information. These are largely anonymous so there's a complete lack of personal information. Exactly what they're spying on is a bit vague.
However, we do have some pretty competent privacy legislation in this country. If RFID tags do become a problem I'd imagine the legislation will be expanded.
But neither of them have articles on the George bush themepark or the McHaggis clan.
t's not quite certain if TNT genuinely wanted to make the show the way they were telling JMS to make it or if they were just doing everything they could to sink the show.
If the TV industry is anything like the games industry, they genuinely thought they were being helpful. Unfortunately the people trying to be helpful had no idea just how hard creating these things actually is, and think that a few simple formulas (e.g. more sex = higher ratings) were as good as actual creativity.
You didn't give it a chance. Which isn't surprising. It required quite a lot of commitment. The dialogue was ropey, the acting from many of the actors was wooden, and a lot of the individual earlier episodes were a little uneventful out of context with the big picture.
But there was a very strong backstory, a lot of really quite clever political stuff, and was generally a lot more daring than other shows - especially science fiction shows - of the time. Characters developed. There was no big plot reset button. There was often no right or wrong answer. A lot of the episode conclusions were far from ideal.
You were trying to get me to narrow down why I claim a dolphin is a fish. Something I'm clearly not going to do because you might find fault with my otherwise impeccible logic:P
So? That means we're amphibians. Not fish.
I'm not quite sure why you're asking about what makes birds birds. Humans were around a long time before the plane was invented, and birds aren't fish either and wouldn't be even if they could fly a plane.
I'm not American. Apart from that, I agree on all points:)
I don't know. Do birds fly in planes? Is that what makes them bords? If so then yes we probably are birds. I don't think they do though. If we had evolved wings then we'd be birds.
And to clarify, by "live in the sea", I mean "evolved to live in the sea". Since a swimmer is not evolved to live in the sea, nad tpyically lives on the land, they're not fish.
Living in the water is what makes them fish.
And ad hominem attacks are generally seen as a sign of someone unskilled in the art of debate.
Dolphins are highly intelligent aquatic mammals that are closely related to whales and porpoises.
So they're clever fish then? Still fish.
"Delphinic" means pertaining to dolphins. Get a dictionary. And dolphins are fish. Just because they smile doesn't mean they don't live in the water.
Hmm. Clearly I've been conditioned to add subliminal messages to my posts without realising.
Not everything can be financed buy advertising. Eventually you're going to have to advertise a product that separates the end user from his pennies.
I suspect that the person who makes this product that people are willing to spend money on is going to make a killing.
So if I said your wife was a dog, it would be a compliment?
The problem with this metaphor is that there are morew sheep than wolves.
Ironically, if a wolf and 2 sheep vote for what's for dinner, we'll still see lamb on the menu.
That's not quite what the law says. The law says that the plaintiff can elect specific damages.
I agree that this should not be constitutional. Amendment VIII has the phrase "nor excessive fines imposed", but I believe precedent goes against that one.
It would have been nice if a consortium of electronics manufacturers came up with their own rival format that explicitely had no region restrictions, always output at full HD resolution, and was in some way or another "better" (or at least as good but substantially cheaper) than the other two formats. But a format would be worthless without content.
I'm not so sure. Sure, the average consumer isn't concerend, but the first people to buy a PS3 are going to be tech savvy, and keep up to date with the tech news.
If people used these correctly, this specific case wouldn't be an issue. The process is something along the lines of this:
Copyright holder (CNN) sends a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP (YouTube). They are obliged to take down the video, inform the subscriber (whoever posted the video), send details of the subscriber to to copyright holder. The subscriber can then assert that the material doesn't infringe copyright, and the ISP can put it up again, safe in the knowledge that the subscriber has accepted full responsibility. The ISP is then out of the picture since its isolated from complaints.
The ISP is perfectly entitled to ignore the takedown if they're certain that no copyright infringement is involved, but then they're liable for damages as well. And fair use is still a valid defence whoever decides to defend the suit.
The idea of using procedures to generate 3D graphics has been around since another BBC game, "The Sentinel", where 9999 levels of 3D landscape were generated at up to 1fps
Did this generate the data on the fly then? I always assumed that it generated the landscape at the start of the level and would just draw from a buffer during the actual game.
the PS3's Cell architecture is supposedly ideal for doing this kind of thing
It's true that parallel systems work well for this general class of tasks. Something as general purpose as a Cell may be overkill. You can do quite a lot just with programmable pixel shaders.
It will prboably be more along the lines of the cost fo a licence to distribute is substantially more than $750.
Claiming nested damages may well backfire since the defendant could then demand the RIAA sue whoever she downloaded it from instead.
The law is out of date. It was written at a time when the possibility of an individual sharing several copies of hundreds of songs was inconceivable. $750 per title as damages for a company that's churning out hundreds of copies for sale at market stalls is hardly totally unreasonable, since they could easily be, and probably would be selling several hundred even if the exact amount sold is impossible to judge. Still not a brilliantly just law but that's another matter.
They're going to sell out at that price anyway. With the production capacity the way it is they could probably sell it at a profit and still sell out.
If you take the perl job, would your income be greater than your outgoing, after taking accoutn of loan repayments, rent, food, utilities and sufficient luxuries that you're content? If so, why do you actually want the extra from the .net job?